Thread: U.S. Said to Order Deep Pay Cuts at Bailed-Out Companies (BO Administration)

Originally Posted by Alundil

Originally Posted by Cybs

Good point, but the deal is, they wanted tax payer money. Why should we (collectively) pay handsomely for someone that screwed up the company in the first place?

Cybs, excellent point. However there are parallels in many different areas. For one, athletes/sports team/stadiums. All of these things benefit from public tax payer money. Most without providing any tangible benefits to the citizens in their locale. Should we allow the government to set their pay? I think that they are overpaid as well. I would not support allowing the government to set their pay though. For the same reasons. It is not the governments job to do so.

Grants and stock ownership are wholly incomparable. What sports teams are majority owned by the federal government? If you can show an example of how that could happen, then your point might be valid,........

Well if this rational is true............ then why are WE paying for the GM workers Cadillac healthcare plans that are Better plans than Even Congress can get ?? Oh thats right because they are Union people.

Originally Posted by BruceBloodMaster

Well if this rational is true............ then why are WE paying for the GM workers Cadillac healthcare plans that are Better plans than Even Congress can get ?? Oh thats right because they are Union people.

Because their unions negotiated the contractual terms w/ the management. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to figure that one out though.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by BruceBloodMaster

Well if this rational is true............ then why are WE paying for the GM workers Cadillac healthcare plans that are Better plans than Even Congress can get ?? Oh thats right because they are Union people.

Because their unions negotiated the contractual terms w/ the management. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to figure that one out though.

You mean the same way these executive negotiated their compensation packages...that are now being cut?


But I suppose that is different, right? One contract negotiated has every right and responsibility to be fulfilled at any cost, while another negotiated contract has every right and responsibility to be voided and re-worked by the government.

Right?

They negotiated their bonuses beforehand? I thought it was the executive boards that CEO's pack with cronies that dole out the bonus packages. I never said that they can't go back and renegotiate, but it wasn't the unions that made the executives make the awful decisions that got them there. But hey if you want to compare the cost to provide a good health plan to all of the companies employees(employees numbering in the thousands), versus the bonus/pay packages for the CEO's (Numbering in the tens) then be my guest. I am willing to say that GM spent more on ten executive bonuses than it does on the "Cadillac health plans" it provides to it's workers annually.

And besides that, nobody said that they can't renegotiate the contract. Don't be surprised if the union membership doesn't swallow.

Quote from: hawgballs on 10/22/09, 09:16 AM
Quote from: Alundil on 10/21/09, 06:02 PM
Quote from: Cybs on 10/21/09, 05:37 PM
Good point, but the deal is, they wanted tax payer money. Why should we (collectively) pay handsomely for someone that screwed up the company in the first place?

Cybs, excellent point. However there are parallels in many different areas. For one, athletes/sports team/stadiums. All of these things benefit from public tax payer money. Most without providing any tangible benefits to the citizens in their locale. Should we allow the government to set their pay? I think that they are overpaid as well. I would not support allowing the government to set their pay though. For the same reasons. It is not the governments job to do so.
Grants and stock ownership are wholly incomparable. What sports teams are majority owned by the federal government? If you can show an example of how that could happen, then your point might be valid,........

But can you show me what % of sports teams take 0 federal/state/local $$? I do not think that are any. The teams, themselves, are not owned (wholly or not) by any level of government, but their "homes" are. And those teams make a large amount of revenue off of their homes. Does that mean that those government agencies/groups/municipalities have any say in the revenue usage of those teams (i.e. salaries)?

Quote from: Mcstrange on 10/22/09, 09:31 AM
Quote from: Alundil on 10/21/09, 05:33 PM

Are top executives overpaid? I am certain that they are. Do they deserve that money? No, I do not think that they do.

Absolutely not. They should make and deserve every penny and likely more. If I was one of those people I would get together with the others that are getting fucked over by the government and tell them they can keep their 10% and walk straight out the door, and I hope they do.

As for this....how many top executives have you heard, or seen, news about that received outrageous compensation packages and the companies that awarded them were in worse positions than they were in prior to that executive taking the helm? I know that I can think of a large number of stories like this in recent memory alone. Those people have been awarded simply because they crafted a contract grossly in their favor and not in the interest of the company. That the company, or board, accepted it is a shame. However, that doesn't mean that those executives were not overpaid. Note: I am not saying that all executives with huge compensation packages are overpaid. Perhaps, I should have stated that more clearly. If a company is making huge returns/profits, then those at the top must be performing well and should then be well compensated. I am saying that it is easy to identify those that are overpaid. If they fail at the jobs (e.g. company loses money hand over fist) they have failed and should not receive the level of compensation that they received. However, I am totally against a governmental organization stepping in and saying "You make too much, we're going to give you 10% of that." If it were me, I'd walk too. I'd also have been among those companies (like FoMoCo) that turned that money down so I wouldn't be in that position in the first place.

I was simply trying to express my opinion that this sets a very bad precedent. I also think that TARP sets a very bad precedent. I also think that a large number of things that have been done by "the government" over the last several years have set bad precedent. Should I not express my opinion and the reasons for it?

EDIT Mcstrange - Sorry about this post I must have hit modify instead of quote and fucked it all up... I had a point but im too dumb to contribute.